I have just purchased a 2TB WD My Book external HD.  I already had a 500GB WD My Passport external HD. My plan is to use the latter for more frequent backups, the other for more spaced ones. Also things that are or will be no longer in my computer's HD will be in these external units. 

I've been using external HDs for a while, but definitely not in the smart way.  My backups are mostly manual, sometimes using a batch file and XXCOPY (I'm a seasoned DOS user, you know...).  I'm sure there is a smarter way to do backups, and with my current way to do things there is always a risk to forget something.

The HD comes with a software, WD Smartware.  Is it any good?  Any other recommendation?

I also thought of doing more than one back up in the 2TB unit, perhaps even having two partitions in it.  Is there any advantage?  Is it possible to have a hardware failure in one partition while the other is unharmed?

I am not very fond of doing HD images as a backup, as I think a software problem or conflict may also be propagated using it. Any thoughts?  What I normally do is to backup files only, most of which are in My Documents, apart a couple of softwares who keep configuration and working files elsewhere - the latter are what I normally use XXCOPY for, so I don't have to remember which files I have to backup.

Another thing I want to change, specifically with photos and videos, is to keep original files in one directory, edited files in another.  The originals don't have to be backed up more than once, the "edited" directory may change as I edit files or change them eventually.  Any thoughts on this too?

If you just want to do automated backups to an external HDD, Microsoft's SyncToy works pretty well and can be set to automatically do backups with some tweaking. Sync Toy can backup all folders or selected ones and can be configured to do additive syncs so it only updates files that have been changed. I haven't tried WD Smartware.

I'm not sure partitions would offer much advantage. If something gets corrupted on one partition you could probably access the other. But in my experience drives usually just totally physically fail which can be expensive to recover if at all.

My main backups used to be to external drives. I did backups manually which I forgot to do way too often. And even with external backups I've had PC drives fail which is pretty disruptive. It can take a day or two to reinstall Windows, all the applications and settings, and reload the data.

So I went with a fully automated backup and picked up an Acer H340 Windows Home Server. It automatically does nightly backups of all PCs on my network. The backups are full images so I can do a full restore and my PC is just like it was before whatever problem happened. You can also backup selected files and folders instead of a full restore. And it can hold up to four 2TB hard drives or 8TB of pooled data. I really didn't want the hastle of multiple external drives so this is great. I still have a 2TB external drive that I use just for a weekly image backup which then goes in a waterproof and fireproof safe.

Hope this helps.

You might want to check Cobian Backup.
I've been using it on fully automatic, once week differential backup.
Never failed and free.

Thanks, Paulie, it seems interesting.

After reading this suggestion last night, I downloaded the ..._x86.exe version and installed it.  Works fine.  Very useful tool.

I run Vista, 32 bit version.  I *think* the x86 refers to the old line of 386-486 and so on version of computer.  Is it possible?

Claude

Now I am confused. Which version to download?

SyncToySetupPackage_v21_x64.exe  3.5 MB
SyncToySetupPackage_v21_x86.exe  2.9 MB

They don't tell the difference.  They say there are 32-bit and 64-bit versions, but which is which?  I need the 32-bit for my XP.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=c26efa36-98e0-4ee9-a7c5-98d0592d8c52&DisplayLang=en

x86 is 32-bit, x64 is 64-bit

Maybe I'm naive and certainly I'm OT but I'm wondering why people are still using external HD for backup, instead of a storage service like Amazon S3.    Is it just a lack of trust, even when the vendor is the size ofAmazon?  Yes I agree, even the big boys have their disasters, but it's hard to imagine Amazon, with all of its distributed redundancy, actually losing content.  I haven't heard of it happening.

I like to backup all my photos, in RAW, so it could easily go up to 1 Tbyte quite fast.  Uploading all those files to Amazon would take a lot of time and lots $$$ !

Claude

Maybe I'm naive and certainly I'm OT but I'm wondering why people are still using external HD for backup, instead of a storage service like Amazon S3.

1 - Because in Europe, I have to pay per volume block. Net backup would be too expensive. Also upload is throttled down to avoid people running servers.
2 - Because in the Philippines, I am on wifi by antenna, averaging 40kbps. The contract actually says "up to" 400kbps but you'll need to pay a monthly bribe under the table to the tech guys to get it.
(For me, a real backup includes the 16-bit TIFs which are around 120MB full 21MP)
3 - My storage needed is 600GB at the moment. A monthly fee of 150$ (on A S3) for that would absorb most of my microstock income. For that price, you can buy a 1-2TB external HD easily.

I use Drobo and it's a joy to use. It stores and backs up data at the same time. I highly recommend it to anyone. Check it out here: http://www.drobo.com

Yes, you guys with terabytes are in a different situation.   

A terabyte on Amazon S3 would cost $150 per month - or on their new 'reduced redunancy' plan,  $100 per month.  The 'reduced rendundancy' service is for data that you could reproduce if necessary, i.e. you could survive its loss at Amazon.  With regard to initial uploading time and cost, I think you can ship them a physical drive, and they'll copy it and ship it back.

Online storage costs should come down - I'm sure Amazon realizes that many people now have so much content (movies, music, photos) that S3 is still priced too high.

I backup once a month to an external hd using Acronis True Image Home  and Mostphotos .com

One solution is to have your own hardware for online backup. I have a 2TB Intel SS4000 in a server central with static ip-address. Cobian backup doing the scheduled work.

Quote from: FD-amateur on May 23, 2010, 10:36

Quote from: stockastic on May 23, 2010, 10:25

their new 'reduced redunancy' plan,  $100 per month.  The 'reduced rendundancy' service is for data that you could reproduce if necessary, i.e. you could survive its loss at Amazon.

If you can reproduce the data, why would you pay 100$ for an (insecure) backup?

yes seems weird to me. US$100 would buy me a 1tb drive and US$150 a 2TB, I could buy a new drive every month (and keep them at my mums, in laws, brother, etc etc if I was really keen)

It's called 'reduced redundancy', not 'hanging by a thread'.  There's still redundancy, just a somewhat larger chance of data loss. I agree it sounds odd, but I suspect it makes sense in the right situations. It's not aimed at archival backup, but at content that is easily regenerated.  Many sites are actually serving content (i.e. images) directly from S3; they might for example have a huge number of thumbnails cached there which could, in an emergency, be recreated.

I feel like I need offsite backup. Yes, I could buy drives and put them at friends' houses - but how will I keep them current? 

S3 solves the problem for me for a few dollars a month - I use JungleDisc to automatically maintain a complete backup - I never think about it.  For people with terabytes, the price is way too high.  But you people nevertheless need offset backup.  I think online storage costs will continue to drop until running around town with backup drives no longer makes sense.

There are also software products that will allow you and a friend to access each others' hard drives online, for offsite backup.  That's a good cheap solution, I think.